T.C. Memo. 2004-102
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
ANGELA BARRIGA, f.k.a. ANGELA ROBLEDO, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 8571-00. Filed April 15, 2004.
Angela Barriga, pro se.
Monica J. Miller, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
COHEN, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in
petitioner’s Federal income tax and penalties for l992, 1993, and
1994 as follows:
- 2 -
Addition to Tax/Penalty
Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6662(a)
1992 $7,589 -- $1,096
1993 90,049 $21,647 17,554
1994 202,878 -- 40,507
Respondent also determined that petitioner is not entitled to
relief from joint and several liability for 1989, 1990, and 1991.
The petition seeks relief from both determinations. The issue
for decision is whether petitioner is eligible for relief under
section 6015 for any of the years 1989 through 1994.
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and
all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated, and the stipulated
facts are incorporated in our findings by this reference.
Petitioner resided in Texas at the time she filed the petition in
this case.
Petitioner was born and raised in Medellin, Colombia. In
1976, petitioner graduated from Asbury College in Wilmore,
Kentucky, and, in 1981, she graduated with a degree of Master of
Science in Education from Baylor University in Texas. Thereafter
she was employed as an elementary school teacher, and she
received wages as a teacher during each of the years in issue.
In 1992, petitioner graduated from the Reynaldo G. Garza School
- 3 -
of Law in San Benito, Texas. Petitioner did not pass the Texas
State bar examination.
Petitioner married Amado Robledo (Robledo) in 1981. She
filed for divorce in 1994. Robledo filed a bankruptcy petition
in 1995. The divorce was finalized in 1997. Petitioner was
awarded money and various items of property in the final divorce
decree, including $150,000, three automobiles, and several
parcels of real property. The divorce decree provided in part as
follows:
AMADO ROBLEDO shall be solely responsible for all
federal income tax liabilities of the parties from the
date of marriage through December 31, 1996 and shall
timely pay any deficiencies, assessments, penalties, or
interest due thereon and shall hold Petitioner harmless
therefrom.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DECREED that the
certificate of deposit in the amount of $200,000.00
plus interest currently held in trust with the Law
Office of Paul L. Wiley * * * in the names of AMADO
ROBLEDO and ANGELA B. ROBLEDO will be used to offset
any tax liabilities, including interest, penalties and
other assessments by the Internal Revenue Service from
the date of marriage through December 31, 1996.
Petitioner and Robledo filed joint Federal income tax
returns for 1989 and 1990. The joint returns reported
underpayments of $6,347 and $271,766 for 1989 and 1990,
respectively. As of the time of trial on September 22, 2003, the
tax, penalty, and interest for 1989 and the tax and interest for
1990 were fully paid after application of payments by Robledo.
- 4 -
In 1995, petitioner and Robledo each filed returns for 1991
using the filing status of “married filing separate return”.
Petitioner’s return for 1991 was filed in March 1995 and reported
tax due of $38,406 and an underpayment of $32,625. On
November 9, 1995, respondent sent a notice of deficiency for 1991
to petitioner. In or after October 1995, petitioner and Robledo
attempted to file an amended return for 1991 using the status of
“married filing joint return”.
In September 1995, Robledo filed separate returns for 1992
and 1993. On October 12, 1995, joint Forms 1040X, Amended U.S.
Individual Income Tax Return, for 1992 and 1993 were filed. The
amended returns claimed overpayments for 1992 and 1993 in the
amounts of $17,106 and $20,386, respectively. Also on
October 12, 1995, petitioner and Robledo filed a joint Form 1040
for 1994 claiming an overpayment of $4,675. Each of the joint
returns reported wages paid to petitioner, Schedule C, Profit or
Loss From Business, income of Robledo, and rental income from
various properties owned by petitioner and Robledo.
In or about 1999, petitioner, represented by a certified
public accountant, filed a request for section 6015 relief.
During the Appeals process, petitioner was allowed partial relief
from joint and several liability under section 6015(c) for 1992,
1993, and 1994. Respondent and petitioner’s representative
together determined the appropriate allocation of the deficiency
- 5 -
for each year. By eliminating the portion of the deficiency
attributable solely to Robledo, petitioner’s liability for the
deficiencies determined in the notice of deficiency after
application of section 6015(c) was reduced to $1,404, $30,120,
and $28,598 for 1992, 1993, and 1994, respectively. The addition
to tax under section 6651(a) for 1993 was reduced to $4,461, and
the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) was reduced to
$281, $3,659, and $5,720 for 1992, 1993, and 1994, respectively.
For 1992, there are estimated tax and withholding credits
available to petitioner of $15,000 and $2,100, respectively, that
will fully pay the proposed tax and penalty assessments. For
1993, there are estimated tax and withholding credits available
of $10,000 and $2,277, respectively.
OPINION
Generally, married taxpayers may elect to file a joint
Federal income tax return. Sec. 6013(a). After making the
election, each spouse is jointly and severally liable for the
entire tax due for that taxable year. Sec. 6013(d)(3). Under
section 6013(b)(2), where a separate return has been filed, an
election to file jointly may not be made more than 3 years after
the due date of the return or after a notice of deficiency has
been sent for the year.
A spouse (requesting spouse) may seek relief from joint and
several liability by following procedures established in section
- 6 -
6015. Sec. 6015(a). A requesting spouse may request relief from
liability under section 6015(b) or, if eligible, may allocate
liability according to provisions under section 6015(c). Sec.
6015(a). If relief is not available under section 6015(b) or
(c), an individual may seek equitable relief from joint and
several liability if “taking into account all the facts and
circumstances, it is inequitable to hold the individual liable
for any unpaid tax”. Sec. 6015(f).
Petitioner has failed to address the applicable statutory
provisions, the adjustments involved in respondent’s
determination, or the relevant facts. Petitioner argues that she
did “not know the facts as to amounts owed, when, or why, as
petitioner never had anything to do with these matters”.
Petitioner generally claims that the division of property
pursuant to the divorce decree was not equitable; she received
properties that were foreclosed; the divorce decree was signed
without notice to her; and “the system” failed to treat her
fairly.
1989 and 1990
Under section 6015(b) and (c), relief from joint and several
liability is available only from proposed or assessed
deficiencies. Sec. 6015(b)(1)(D), (c)(1). Neither section
6015(b) nor section 6015(c) permits relief from liabilities that
were reported on a return but remained unpaid. Hopkins v.
- 7 -
Commissioner, 121 T.C. 73, 88 (2003). Because the liabilities
from 1989 and 1990 are due to underpayments with respect to
amounts reported on joint returns, petitioner may obtain relief,
if at all, only under section 6015(f).
We have jurisdiction to review respondent’s denial of
petitioner’s request for equitable relief under section 6015(f).
Jonson v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106, 125 (2002), affd. 353 F.3d
1181 (10th Cir. 2003); Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 292
(2000). We review such denial of relief to decide whether
respondent abused respondent’s discretion by acting arbitrarily,
capriciously, or without sound basis in fact. Jonson v.
Commissioner, supra at 125; Butler v. Commissioner, supra at 292.
Whether respondent’s denial of petitioner’s request for relief
under section 6015(f) was an abuse of discretion is a question of
fact. Cheshire v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 183, 198 (2000), affd.
282 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2002). Petitioner bears the burden of
proving an abuse of discretion. Washington v. Commissioner, 120
T.C. 137, 146 (2003); see also Alt v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 306,
311 (2002) (“Except as otherwise provided in section 6015,
petitioner bears the burden of proof.”); Jonson v. Commissioner,
supra at 113 (same).
As directed by section 6015(f), the Commissioner has
prescribed procedures to determine whether a taxpayer qualifies
for relief from joint and several liability. These procedures
- 8 -
are set forth in Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. 447. This Court
has upheld the use of these procedures in reviewing a negative
determination. See Washington v. Commissioner, supra at 147;
Jonson v. Commissioner, supra at 125. Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec.
4.01, 2000-1 C.B. at 448, lists seven conditions (threshold
conditions) that must be satisfied before the Commissioner will
consider a request for relief under section 6015(f).
If the threshold conditions are satisfied, Rev. Proc.
2000-15, sec. 4.02, 2000-1 C.B. at 448, lists circumstances where
relief will generally be granted, subject to two limitations. If
it is unclear whether these circumstances are satisfied, the
Commissioner looks to Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03, 2000-1 C.B.
at 448, to determine whether the taxpayer should be granted
equitable relief.
Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03(1), 2000-1 C.B. at 448, lists
the following six factors that the Commissioner will consider as
weighing in favor of granting relief for an unpaid liability
(positive factors): (1) The requesting spouse is separated or
divorced from the nonrequesting spouse; (2) the requesting spouse
would suffer economic hardship if relief were denied; (3) the
requesting spouse was abused by the nonrequesting spouse; (4) the
requesting spouse did not know or have reason to know that the
reported liability would be unpaid at the time that the return
was signed; (5) the nonrequesting spouse has a legal obligation
- 9 -
pursuant to a divorce decree or agreement to pay the unpaid
liability; and (6) the unpaid liability is attributable to the
nonrequesting spouse. Rev. Proc. 2000-15, sec. 4.03(2), 2000-1
C.B. at 449, lists the following six factors that the
Commissioner will consider as weighing against granting relief
for an unpaid liability (negative factors): (1) The unpaid
liability is attributable to the requesting spouse; (2) the
requesting spouse knew or had reason to know that the reported
liability would be unpaid at the time that the return was signed;
(3) the requesting spouse significantly benefited (beyond normal
support) from the unpaid liability; (4) the requesting spouse
will not suffer economic hardship if relief is denied; (5) the
requesting spouse has not made a good faith effort to comply with
Federal income tax laws in the tax years following the tax year
to which the request for relief relates; and (6) the requesting
spouse has a legal obligation pursuant to a divorce decree or
agreement to pay the unpaid liability. No single factor is
determinative, and the list is not exhaustive. See Washington v.
Commissioner, supra at 148; Jonson v. Commissioner, supra at 125.
Petitioner is divorced from Robledo, and the divorce decree
allocates tax liabilities to Robledo. Only those two factors
weigh in her favor. Petitioner has not negated her knowledge of
the reported liabilities, has not shown that she would suffer
economic hardship if relief were denied, and has not shown that
- 10 -
the liabilities are attributable to Robledo. Her returns for the
3 years subsequent to 1990 were delinquent until 1995. We cannot
conclude on this record that denial of relief was an abuse of
discretion.
1991
The filing of a joint return is required for a taxpayer to
be granted relief under section 6015. Raymond v. Commissioner,
119 T.C. 191 (2002). Because she filed a separate return for
1991 and the subsequent attempted election of joint return status
was untimely under section 6013(b)(2), petitioner is not entitled
to relief for 1991.
1992, 1993, and 1994
As detailed in our Findings of Fact, respondent has made
concessions for 1992, 1993, and 1994. Respondent’s Appeals
Office and petitioner’s representative determined an allocation
of the liabilities for those years under section 6015(c).
Petitioner has not contested the deficiencies or the allocations
and has not shown that she is eligible for additional relief
beyond that already granted to her.
To be eligible for relief under section 6015(b), petitioner
must show, among other things, that she did not know or have
reason to know of the understatement of tax on the subject
returns; that the understatements were attributable to Robledo;
and that, taking into account all the facts and circumstances, it
- 11 -
would be inequitable to hold her liable for the deficiency in tax
attributable to the understatement. In view of petitioner’s
education, we do not accept her generalized allegations that she
knew nothing about tax matters for the years in issue. She did
not file timely returns for 1992, 1993, or 1994, even though she
received compensation as a school teacher during those years.
She acknowledges that, at the time the returns were filed, she
was represented by an attorney and a certified public accountant.
Petitioner and Robledo lived in a community property State and
together owned rental real estate, some of which petitioner was
awarded in the divorce decree. Petitioner seeks to be relieved
of liability for taxes on her own income as well as that of
Robledo, asserting that she was unfairly treated in the divorce
proceedings and in the bankruptcy court. She has not satisfied
the requirements for relief under section 6015(b). (The relief
that she was granted under section 6015(c) includes any relief
that she might have claimed under section 6015(b) with respect to
items attributable solely to Robledo.)
For the same reasons, and applying the factors discussed
with respect to 1990, we cannot conclude that denial of relief to
petitioner under section 6015(f) was an abuse of discretion.
We have considered the other arguments made by petitioner. They
- 12 -
are irrelevant to the legal issues in this case. To reflect
respondent’s concessions and the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.